The John Whitmer Historical Association · PDF filevi tHe JoHN WHItMer HIStorICAL ASSoCIAtIoN JoUrNAL ... tHe JoHN WHItMer HIStorICAL ASSoCIAtIoN JoUrNAL vii ... try. choing God’s

The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal

John Whitmer (ca. 1870)

CoUrteSy oF CoMMUNIty oF CHrISt ArCHIveS

Fall/Winter 2014, Vol. 34, No. 2

vi THE JOHN WHITMER HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL

e D I t o r I A L S t A F F

William D. Morain, Editorerin B. Metcalfe, Associate Editor

William D. russell, Book Review EditorJohn C. Hamer, Production Director

e D I t o r I A L B o A r D

Gary BergeraClyde ForsbergCraig L. Foster

David J. HowlettMelvin Johnson

tom KimballH. Michael Marquardt

Brent Lee MetcalfeMark Scherer

William ShepardSteven L. Shields

Barbara B. WaldenBiloine W. young

o F F I C e r S o F t H e A S S o C I A t I o N

Lachlan Mackay, President 2013–14erin B. Metcalfe, President-Elect 2014–15

r. Jean Addams, Immediate Past President 2012–13Cheryle Grinter, Executive Director

Lewis Weigand, TreasurerBiloine W. young, Endowment Fund Treasurer

B o A r D o F D I r e C t o r S o F t H e A S S o C I A t I o N

Christopher Blythe, 2011–14Craig L. Foster, 2011–14Jan Marshall, 2012–15

Barbara B. Walden, 2012–15 Debra Marsh, 2013–16

William D. russell, 2013–16

robert B. Flanders, 1973–74Alma r. Blair, 1975

Kenneth e. Stobaugh, 1976William D. russell, 1977Barbara J. Higdon, 1978Paul M. edwards, 1979Clare D. vlahos, 1980

W. Grant McMurray, 1981Thomas J. Morain, 1982

Norma Derry Hiles, 1983Paul M. edwards, 1984

richard P. Howard, 1985Wayne Ham, 1986

robert C. Mesle, 1987Linda King Newell, 1988

Maurice L. Draper, 1989–90roger D. Launius, 1991–92Isleta L. Pement, 1993–94

Jessie L. embry, 1995–96Danny L. Jorgensen, 1996–97

ronald e. romig, 1997–98Barbara J. Bernauer, 1998–99

edward A. Warner, 1999–2000Alma r. Blair, 2000–01

Michael S. riggs, 2001–02Biloine W. young, 2002–03Mark A. Scherer, 2003–04

Jan Shipps, 2004–05Newell G. Bringhurst, 2005–06Alexander L. Baugh, 2006–07Barbara B. Walden, 2007–08William Shepard, 2008–09Jeanne Murphey, 2009–10John C. Hamer, 2010–11

Steven L. Shields, 2011–12r. Jean Addams, 2012–13

viitHe JoHN WHItMer HIStorICAL ASSoCIAtIoN JoUrNAL

P A S t P r e S I D e N t S

J o H N W H I t M e r B o o K S

Jan Marshall, Executive Directorvickie Cleverley Speek, Editor

erin B. Metcalfe, Associate EditorJohn C. Hamer, Publisher and Production Director

1

The Curious Textual History of “Egyptus” the Wife of Ham

Brent Lee Metcalfe

Whats in a name? That which we call a Roſe, By any other name would ſmell as ſweet: —Juliet1

Her story emerges from the depths of Joseph Smith’s Abrahamic nar-rative. Her name would portend the mystique of her vast, royal descen-dants who formed a populous, influential civilization, while her husband’s

name—“Ham,” son of diluvian patriarch Noah—would drown in infamy.In Smith’s prophetic lexicon, her name signifies “egypt,” which in turn signifies

“that which is forbidden.” But what is her name? Beginning with the initial printing in 1842,2 published versions of Smith’s Book of Abraham call her “egyptus” (Abr. 1:23); however, in the manuscript drafts, that wasn’t always the case, not even mostly the case. textual criticism of Abraham 1:23, 25 illuminates the peculiar way Ham’s wife eventually acquired her name.

Times and Seasons 3, no. 9 (March 1, 1842): 705 (¶ 7a); Abraham 1:23, 25:

The land of egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of egyptus, which, in the Chaldea, signifies egypt, which signifies, that which is forbidden.…

1. William Shakespeare, An Excellent Conceited Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet (London: John Danter, 1597), quire D, lines 50–51.

2. The Book of Abraham and accompanying facsimile vignettes (with interpretations) were first published seri-ally in Times and Seasons 3, no. 9 (March 1, 1842): 703 (Facsimile 1), 704–06 (Abr. 1:1–2:18); 3, no. 10 (March 15, 1842): 719–22 (Abr. 2:19–5:21), insert between 720–21 (Facsimile 2); 3, no. 14 (May 16, 1842): 783–84 (Facsimile 3).

2 THE JOHN WHITMER HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL

Now the first government of egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was Patriarchal.

Smith’s Book of Abraham opens with its protagonist recounting his quest for the patriarchal priesthood, a priestly order originating with Adam that is a “right” con-ferred upon each successive generation (Abr. 1:1–3). Abraham becomes “a rightful heir, a High Priest” (v.2). Persecution ensues because of his condemnation of idola-try. echoing God’s grim test of Abraham’s fidelity (Gen. 22:1ff ), Abraham, bound upon an altar, petitions heaven as an egyptian priest wields a blade over him. God delivers Abraham, destroying the sacrificial bier and heathen idols and killing the priest (Abr. 1:12–17, 20, 29; Fac. 1).3

toward the end of the opening chapter, Abraham interrupts his autobiographi-cal sketch with an analepsis about Pharaoh’s regal lineage and egypt’s humble begin-nings (Abr. 1:20b–27). In the aftermath of the great deluge, Noah’s granddaughter through Ham settles her sons in a land that she had previously discovered while it was submerged (v. 24).4 Her eldest son creates a government that simulates the

3. Comparing these themes to extrabiblical Abrahamic legends in support of Book of Abraham antiquity is misguided. Claims such as “The majority of these nonbiblical traditions were not available to the Prophet Joseph Smith during his lifetime” are irrelevant since numerous antebellum publications recounted extrabiblical Abra-hamic legends, if not the specific sources that Mormon scholars have compiled. John A. tvedtnes, Brian Hauglid, and John Gee, comps. and eds., Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham (Provo, Ut: Foundation for Ancient research and Mormon Studies, 2001), xxxv, and passim. LDS historian Andrew Hedges avers that among a selection of Bible commentators from Smith’s day, “None of these commentators mentioned the available tradi-tions concerning attempts to sacrifice Abraham himself.” Andrew H. Hedges, “A Wanderer in a Strange Land: Abraham in America, 1800–1850,” Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, ed. John Gee and Brian Hauglid (Provo, Ut: Foundation for Ancient research and Mormon Studies, 2005), 186. Hedges is contradicted by one of his chief commentators, Matthew Henry:

The Jewish writers have a tradition that Abram was cast into the fiery furnace for refusing to worship idols, and was miraculously delivered.… Thence God brought him by an effectual call; brought him with a gra-cious violence; snatched him as a brand out of the burning.

Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (Philadelphia: towar & Hogan, 1828), sv Genesis 15:7; see also sv Daniel 3:27 where Henry again mentions the “tradition of the Jews” about the attempted immola-tion of Abraham and his subsequent deliverance. Another of Hedges’s silent commentators on the sacrifice/execution motif, Adam Clarke, was actually one of the more observant expositors of this tradition. For instance:

The Targum applies this to Abraham. “Abraham … refused to worship the idols which … Nimrod, had set up; therefore, Nimrod cast him into a furnace of fire. But the Lord worked a miracle, and delivered him.…”

Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible … with a Commentary and Critical Notes (New york: N. Bangs and J. emory, 1826), sv ecclesiastes 4:13; see also sv 2 Chronicles 28:3, sv “The targum, or Chaldee paraphrase, on the Song of Songs” 7:8(m), sv Isaiah 30:23, sv Daniel 3:6. Contra Hedges, such Abrahamic traditions were commonly circulated in Smith’s environment, even in sources that Hedges alleges did not include them.

4. Being “under water” (Abr. 1:26) may refer to the Noachian flood or a “land overflown by the seasons” as alluded to in Smith’s Grammar and Alphabet of the egyptian Language (GAeL), 5, sv “Iota toues Zip Zi.” The GAeL is

3METCALFE: The Curious Textual History of “Egyptus”

patriarchal order; the land is called egypt and he is called Pharaoh (v. 25). He is a righteous, wise, and just king, a partaker of earthly or kingly blessings, but he is the progeny of a cursed lineage that has lost the “right” to the priestly order (vv. 26–27).5

From Matriarch Zeptah …

Unlike the Bible, Smith’s Abrahamic narrative identifies Ham’s wife and their daughter, Noah’s daughter-in-law and granddaughter, each by name—or names. In the earliest manuscript drafts of the Book of Abraham, transcribed in 1835,6 the mother and daughter do not share a common name, nor do either of them have the same name as it appears in the published version.

In the two earliest manuscripts, BA1a (Frederick G. Williams scribe)7 and BA1b (Warren Parrish scribe),8 Ham’s wife is dubbed Zep-tah or Zeptah:9

BA1a 3.3

was the daughter of Ham{,±;} and the daughter of Zep-tah.

available online, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/grammar-and-alphabet-of-the-egyptian-language-circa-july-circa-december-1835#!/paperSummary/grammar-and-alphabet-of-the-egyptian-language-circa-july-circa-december-1835&p=1.

5. Cf. “A prince of the royal blood a true desendant from Ham, the son of Noah, and inheritor of the Kingly blessings from under the hand of Noah, but not according to the priestly blessing, because of the trangrissions of Ham, which fell upon Shem from under the hand of Noah” (GAeL, 4, sv “Ho-e-oop”); “honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharoah. possession by birth one who reigns upon his throne universally — possessor of heaven and earth, and of the blessings of the earth” (GAeL, 4–5, sv “Ho e oop hah”). Pharaoh’s “curse” specifically involves an ancestral male “right” to priesthood—a patriarchal priesthood. His lack of “right” is further accentuated by his regal connection to Ham via his mother, an invalid matrilineal claim to patriarchal authority. If Smith applied Pharaoh’s “curse” to males of African descent, this may elucidate Smith’s admittance of blacks to Mormonism’s other two priesthoods—Aaronic and Melchizedek—prior to Brigham young’s sweeping priesthood restriction on black males.

6. Book of Abraham manuscript designations in this essay generally follow those proposed by edward H. Ash-ment. See hypernote 7 in “Abraham in the Breathing Permit of Hôr (pJS1),” http://www.mormonscriptur-estudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp#7hn.

7. BA1a is available online, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paper-Summary/frederick-g-williams-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-circa-october-1835-abraham-14-26#!/paperSum-mary/frederick-g-williams-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-circa-october-1835-abraham-14-26&p=1.

8. BA1b is available online, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paper-Summary/warren-parrish-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-fall-1835-abraham-14-22#!/paperSummary/warren-parrish-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-fall-1835-abraham-14-22&p=1.

9. For a key to the manuscript transcription symbols used in this essay, see appendix 1.


BA1b 4.23

Zeptah, which in the Chaldea, signif-

When Parrish copied the text of BA1a and BA1b into BA2,10 he retained his spell-ing of the name:

BA2 5.4

Ham, and the daughter of Zeptah, which

The name of Ham and Zeptah’s daughter is consistently spelled Egyptes in all three of the 1835 manuscripts transcribed in Kirtland (BA1a, BA1b, and BA2). In Nau-voo, that would change.

table 1 shows the general stemmatic relationship among the manuscripts for the textual history of Abraham 1:23.11

10. BA2 is available online, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/pa-perSummary/william-w-phelps-and-warren-parrish-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-summer-fall-1835-abra-ham-11-218#!/paperSummary/william-w-phelps-and-warren-parrish-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-summer-fall-1835-abraham-11-218&p=1.

11. An analysis of the nuances and caveats inherent in this textual stemma is beyond the scope of this essay.


[ Joseph Smith (dictation)]

[BA1a 3.2–5a, Frederick G. Williams scribe]

[BA2 5.2–6b, Warren Parrish scribe]

[BA1b 4.21–26a, Warren Parrish scribe]

[character] �e land of E{g}ypt being �rst discovered by a woman, who | was thedaughter of Ham{,±;} and the daughter of Zep-tah. | which in the Chal{d}ea signi�es Egypt, which sign�es th{a}t | which is forbidden.

[character] �e land of Egypt being �rst discovered, | by a woman, who was the daughter of | Ham, and the daughter of Zeptah, which | in the chaldea, signi�es Egypt, which sig- | ni�es that which is forbidden.

[Times and Seasons 3, no. 9 (March 1, 1842): 705 (¶ 7a)]

�e land of Egypt being �rst discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which, in the Chaldea, signi�es Egypt, which signi�es, that which is forbidden.

[BA3 7.14a–18, Willard Richards scribe]

‹P. 6› �e land of Egypt | being �rt d{i}scoverd by a woman, who was th | daughter of Ham{.\,} & the Daughter of {J±G}ep-tah | Egeptah‹us›‹Egyptus›, which, in the chaldea, signi�es | Egypt.;, which signi�es{,\,} that which is forbidden.

[character] �e land of Egypt, being �rstdisco- | vered, by a woman, who was thedaugh- | ter of Ham, and the daughter of | Zeptah, which in the Chaldea, signif- | ies Egypt, which signi�es that which | is forbidden{,\.}

Table 1Abraham 1:23—Textual History


… to Matriarch Egyptus

In 1842, when Smith and his scribe Willard richards created a printer’s manu-script (BA3)12 in preparation for publishing the Book of Abraham, Smith redacted his 1835 text in several instances, including Zeptah’s name:

BA3 7.16–17

daughter of Ham{.\,} & the Daughter of {J±G}ep-tah

Egeptah, which, in the chaldea, signifies

Curiously, richards doesn’t transcribe the matriarch’s name with an initial Z. Instead, he transcribes her name with an initial letter that most closely resembles one of his letterforms for an uppercase J as in Jep-tah. richards then changes the J (possibly before fully writing the J) to a G by overwriting the small ascender hook/loop of the J with an elongated loop.13

Although some scholars render the initial letter of the name as “Z” (following the earlier manuscripts), richards’s uppercase J letterforms are distinct from his up-percase Z letterforms.14

12. BA3 is available online, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/pa-perSummary/willard-richards-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-early-1842-a-abraham-11-218#!/paperSummary/willard-richards-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-early-1842-a-abraham-11-218&p=1.

13. The elongated loop resembles the ascender loop in this style of richards’s uppercase G:

“Gallands” in Joseph Smith Journal, January 20, 1842, available online, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-december-1841-december-1842#!/paperSum-mary/journal-december-1841-december-1842&p=13.

14. {J±G}ep-tah is rendered “{◊|Z}ep-tah” in Brian M. Hauglid, A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions (Provo, Ut: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for religious Scholarship, 2010), 167, and “Zep-tah” on The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed on July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/willard-richards-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-early-1842-a-abraham-11-218#!/paperSummary/willard-rich-

us

^

Egyptus


Willard richards, uppercase J

15 16 17

Willard richards, uppercase Z

18 19 20

richards’s shift from J to G suggests that the phoneme was pronounced as a soft /g/, as in gin or giant or the medial g in Egypt.21 This spelling adjustment brought the

ards-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-early-1842-a-abraham-11-218&p=11. Cf. “Jephthah” in Judges 11:1ff; alterna-tive nineteenth-century spellings of the name included “Jeptah” in Arthur o’Leary, Essays and Tracts of the Rev. Arthur O’Leary (Lewistown, PA: Charles Bell & Sons, 1832), 100; “Jeptha” in Andrew Bigelow, God’s Charge unto Israel: A Sermon Preached before his Honor Samuel T. Armstrong (Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, 1836), 37; and “Jepthe” in The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Utica, Ny: William Williams, 1835), Hebrews 11:32. richards had multiple letterforms for both his uppercase J and Z, but the graphetic convergence between the two is superficial at best—akin to equating nickels and dimes.

15. “July” in Joseph Smith to John Bernhisel, January 4, 1842, Letterbook 2, 221, available online, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/letterbook-2#!/paperSummary/letterbook-2&p=226.

16. This and the previous J are each the initial letter in “Joseph” in Joseph Smith Journal, March 11, 1843, available online, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843#!/paperSummary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843&p=13.

17. “January” in Joseph Smith Journal, January 4, 1842, available online, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-december-1841-december-1842#!/paperSum-mary/journal-december-1841-december-1842&p=10.

18. This and the previous Z are each the initial letter in “Zion” in Joseph Smith Journal, January 6, 1842, available online, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-december-1841-december-1842#!/paperSummary/journal-december-1841-december-1842&p=10.

19. “Zarahemla” in Joseph Smith Journal, December (n.d.), 1841, available online, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-december-1841-december-1842?p=12#!/paperSummary/journal-december-1841-december-1842&p=6.

20. “Zenith” in Joseph Smith Journal, March 10, 1843, available online, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843?p=10#!/paperSummary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843&p=10.

21. This and other instances of transcription variations from the 1835 drafts hint at orality, suggesting that Smith may have read and audibly revised portions of earlier manuscripts to richards as they composed the printer’s


name closer to its next variation, Egeptah, and closer to the name of her daughter, Egeptes—whose name was about to go through a few adjustments of its own that would eventually lead to the final iteration of her mother’s name.

But after her name’s evolution Zep-tah/Zeptah → Jep-tah → Gep-tah → Egeptah, what prompted the final variation Egyptus? The evolution of her daugh-ter’s name provides an answer.

BA3 8.6

of Egepta{h}’s Egypt{es±\u}s, the daughter of Ham,

to understand the interrelationship of the mother and daughter’s names it’s necessary to peel back the transcriptional layers of the redaction sequence. table 2 delineates the complexity of the text-critical data.

The order of transcriptional layers [01] and [02] are uncertain because there is no chirographic or ink evidence that can determine whether the J was altered to form G before or after the rest of the name was transcribed. This is compounded by the lack of a connecting stroke to the medial e. But the alteration was made before the name was canceled via strikethrough in [03] because the addition of Egeptah and the cancelation of {J±G}ep-tah via strikethrough in [04] are inline redactions, meaning they were made before richards continued on with his transcription.

After making those redactions to the mother’s name, richards transcribed sev-eral more lines, and then he came to the daughter’s name. richards writes Egeptah in [05] just like her mother’s revised name, but the earlier manuscripts transcribe her name as Egyptes, so in [06] richards awkwardly adds an apostrophe s (Egeptah’s).22 This rendition is quickly abandoned in [07] when richards cancels the name via strik-ethrough before he adds a crossbar to the medial t, and he replaces the name with Egyptes, the spelling in all of the previous drafts.

manuscript. This may explain the almost frenetic pace at which richards appears to be transcribing the text, which exhibits chirographic features not found in other manuscripts where he is visually copying.

22. richards may have written Egeptah’s in one transcriptional layer with [05]. What makes this rendition particu-larly interesting is that richards spells the daughter’s name like her mother’s revised name (Egeptah) but then artificially forms the es vocalization in the earlier Egyptes by adding an apostrophe s. Again, this may be evidence that portions of richards’s transcription involved hearing someone read in lieu of visually copying. Indeed, that the redactions continue lends credence to this. Some may be tempted to see the anomalous stroke on the shoulder of the h in Egeptah’s as a feeble effort to form the eye of a potential e (as in the es ending in Egyptes). And while that’s a remote possibility, not every scribal mark is an attempt to shape or reshape a letterform—sometimes an anomalous stroke is just an anoma-lous stroke.


Then comes transcription layer [08]. Now that the daughter’s name has been re-stored to its original form it undergoes one more redaction—richards overwrites the terminal s in es with a small vertical stroke that now along with the closed eye of the e forms a u and he appends a new terminal s to spell Egyptus. This was all done before he adds the comma, which signals the continuation of the transcription.

When richards first transcribed the daughter’s name as Egeptah she became the namesake of her mother’s revised name; i.e., an anomalous eponymous hom-onymy. Now, daughter is Egyptus and mother Egeptah, but not for long. In layer [09], richards and Smith return to the mother’s name. The ah in Egeptah is canceled via strikethrough and an interlinear us is added to spell Egeptus; but the medial e is still inconsistent with the medial y in the daughter’s name. So in layer [10] the remaining letters of the inline name Egeptah are also canceled via strikethrough, a sublinear caret is added, and Egyptus is inserted above the line. Daughter is once again the namesake of her mother.

Settling on a name for Ham’s wife reveals remarkable fluidity in Smith’s pro-phetic lexicon. Zep-tah/Zeptah, Jep-tah(/Gep-tah), Egeptah(/Egeptus), and fi-nally Egyptus are each transcribed as viable candidates for an imaginative Chaldean name whose meaning remains constant, despite the phonemic disparity of the name variations.23

23. Whence Zeptah and Egyptus? Smith’s egyptian alphabet and grammar project anticipates Zeptah. In the triplet egyptian Alphabet manuscripts EA1a ( Joseph Smith scribe), EA1b (oliver Cowdery scribe), and EA1c (William W. Phelps scribe), and the GAeL, Smith orchestrated imaginative interpretations of egyptian and invented glyphs. Forms of “Zep” and “tah” crop up in several suggestive contexts. For instance, “Zip Zi” is said to entail among other things “all women: it took its origin from the earth yielding its fruit. and from the first woman who bore children; and men were multiplied upon the earth” (GAeL, 10); elsewhere “Zip Zi” entails “under or beneath, second in right or in authority or government, a fruitful place or fruitful vine” (GAeL, 13); “Iota tou - es Zip - Zip” signifies “the land of egypt first seen under ‹water›” (EA1a, 1); in the bound grammar and alphabet, “Iota toues Zip Zi” means “The woman sought to settle her sons in that land. she being the daughter of Ham” (GAeL, 14); “tone tahe or {th\-} tohe ton - es” signifies “beneath or under water” (EA1a, 1); “toan tou ee tahee tohee tou es” has several meanings, including “coming down in lineage by royal descent, in a line by onitas on of the royal familees of the Kings theof egypt” (GAeL, 5); each of these phrases and accompanying interpretations are variations on themes found in Abraham 1:20b–27. The triplet egyptian Alphabet manuscripts are available online. EA1a, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-alphabet-js-and-oliver-cowdery-scribe-circa-july-circa-december-1835; EA1b, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://jo-sephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-alphabet-oliver-cowdery-scribe-circa-july-circa-december-1835; EA1c, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 4, 2014, http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-alphabet-william-w-phelps-scribe-circa-july-circa-december-1835. Mother and daughter namesakes likely garnered the final version of their names from “egyptus,” a sobri-quet of Sethosis, said by Josephus to be the eponymous founder of egypt. William Whiston, trans., The Works of Flavius Josephus (Baltimore: Armstrong and Plaskitt, and Plaskitt & Co., 1830), 584. Smith’s brother Hyrum owned a copy of this edition of Josephus (located in the LDS Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Ut, call number 933 J83w 1830). As egyptologist Stephen e. Thompson observes, “egyptus” is an anachronistic Greek word that “does not mean ‘forbidden’ in any language.” Stephen e. Thompson, “egyptology and the Book of Abra-ham,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 28, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 155–56.


Still, the evolution from Zeptah to Egyptus is an intricate textual curiosity in-volving a resonant narrative figure—one of a handful of enigmatic women crucial to the first chapter of Smith’s brief Abrahamic tale.

Brent L ee Metcalfe is editor of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Ex-plorations in Critical Methodology and co-editor with Dan vogel of American Apocry-pha: Essays on the Book of Mormon. Brent has published and delivered presentations on Mormon studies in a variety of academic venues. He also serves on the John Whit-mer Historical Association Journal editorial board. Brent is currently partnering with

Table 2Redaction Sequence

BA3 7.16–17 (Abr. 1:23) BA3 8.6 (Abr. 1:25)

[01] Jep-tah

[02] {J±G}ep-tah

[03] {J±G}ep-tah

[04] {J±G}ep-tah | Egeptah

[09] {J±G}ep-tah | Egeptah‹us›

[10] {J±G}ep-tah | Egeptah‹us›‹Egyptus›

[05] Egeptah

[06] Egepta{h}’s

[07] Egepta{h}’s Egyptes

[08] Egepta{h}’s Egypt{es±\u}s


Appendix 1Transcription Method

X = X is canceled via strikethrough or partial strikethrough

X = X is canceled via erasure or partial erasure (wiping or scraping)

[X] = X is unreadable due to a physical trait of the document {X} = X involves ambiguous overwriting {X\Y} = y overwrites a fully or partially written X

{X\Y} = X is canceled via strikethrough or partial strikethrough and y overwrites X {X\Y} = X is canceled via erasure or partial erasure and y overwrites X {X±Y} = X is either added to or subtracted from to create y {X≈Y} = X and y share similar letterforms and in an emendation X now represents y

X◊Z = ◊ is indecipherable (◊ = strikethrough; ◊ = erasure)

X^Z = ^ is missing in one text but present in a parallel text

‹X› = X is a supralinear insertion (inline text only)

| = line break

|| = page break

John Dehlin of Mormon Stories Podcast to launch a neoteric online venue, Mormon Studies Podcast.

Documents

The John Whitmer Historical Association · PDF filevi tHe JoHN WHItMer HIStorICAL ASSoCIAtIoN JoUrNAL ... tHe JoHN WHItMer HIStorICAL ASSoCIAtIoN JoUrNAL vii ... try. choing God’s